I mean I know most people say it doesn't matter but I feel like it helps to have a better rating. I don't get good ovr rating at d2 ever but yet my guys have at least 50 ath and 50 def and I still feel like some how the system screws me. Let me post my team for example.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12118

I will say that my bh and pass are a little low but I do have lots of guys with good def and ath. My total rating is pretty low and so I was wondering if that is making my team do a little worse when my games sim

The less you look at overall ratings, the better IMO.  Durability is completely useless, and the fact that it counts just as much as something like ATH tells you all you need to know.  Often the players with the highest overall ratings are the "good at everything but not great at anything" SF's.

lol of course it matters!!! all they were saying is you can have a guy who is 600 overall with 99we 99sta 99dur...his value is actually considerably less than a guy with 575 rating and a 40we 80sta 40dur

The system isn't screwing you, the players aren't as good as you think.   Fifty is pretty low in my opinion for D2, seventy is the number you should be shooting for in your cores.  


I think you should be pounding it inside a little more with Bassham and Gifford.  Gayden should probably shoot less 3's as well.  He could be a pretty solid drive to the hoop type guy.

the SIM does  not look at overall rating - it applies each rating where it matters

as noted, overall rating is flawed because it includes as if they mattered every point of DUR, WE and STAM.  The other ratings govern performance.  Now, WE matters and STAM can matter, but those three dont deserve the same weight

Generally speaking a good to great team shoots for ratings in the core areas of 60+ at DIII, 65+ at DII, 70+ at low DI, 75+ at mid-major, and 80+ at the higher levels of DI (and really, as high as you can get if you want a national title contending DI team). That's my understanding.

Although I will say that a team can easily make the postseason and win games with ratings that are less than those numbers. I've even had teams make deep runs in the NT with cores slightly below those I mention.

Two statements; if a team generally shoots for high overall ratings without purposely trying to be bad they will probably be halfway decent. But the difference between decent and good is getting them apportioned correctly.

Posted by arssanguinus on 4/22/2013 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Two statements; if a team generally shoots for high overall ratings without purposely trying to be bad they will probably be halfway decent. But the difference between decent and good is getting them apportioned correctly.

This is a pretty good answer actually.